Appendix

APPENDIX

Part I

Daniel's Image

The most widely held position among premillennial students of the Word concerning Daniel's image in Daniel, chapter two (or the "four great beasts" in chapter seven) views the four parts of the image (or the "four great beasts") as representing 1) Babylon, 2) Media-Persia, 3) Greece, and 4) Rome. This would be the position set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible footnotes for example, a position followed by most premillennial commentators.

The only part of the prophecy really in question would be the fourth part. Daniel identifies the first three beasts (and, correspondingly, the first three parts of the image) as particular nations conquering Babylon, and this part of the prophecy has been fulfilled and is a matter of history.

But should the fourth part of the image (or the fourth beast) be identified as Rome? There are two main reasons why people interpret the prophecy after this fashion: 1) Rome was the next world power following Greece, and 2) the words, "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary," in Dan. 9:26, are usually associated with a Roman destruction in history and a Roman prince (Antichrist) in prophecy -- both connected with the fourth part of the image.

Greece was the third kingdom (represented by the belly and thighs of brass on the image), and the fourth kingdom (represented by the legs of iron, and in its final form by the feet part of iron and part of clay) would, from history, seem to be Rome, with the final form looked upon as a revived Roman Empire. This interpretation would appear to be substantiated by Dan. 9:26. In this verse, "the prince that shall come" is Antichrist, and "the people of the prince [understood as 'his people']" are said to be the Romans destroying Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Thus, Antichrist is said to be a Roman prince who will rule a revived Roman Empire in the latter days.

In other words, all of Daniel's image except the feet would have a historical fulfillment. The legs would represent the Roman Empire in history, and the feet would represent the revived Roman Empire during the Tribulation. And the same would hold true for the corresponding description set forth by the "four great beasts" in Daniel, chapter seven. The first three beasts would have a historical fulfillment, and the fourth would have a partial fulfillment in history. The fourth beast would represent the Roman Empire in both history and prophecy, corresponding to the legs and feet of the image.

Is the preceding though the way Scripture sets forth the fourth and final part of the Babylonian kingdom? Or is this an attempt to interpret Biblical prophecy through events in secular history rather than interpreting prophecy by comparing Scripture with Scripture? The answer is easy to ascertain if one remains solely within that which Daniel (and related Scripture) reveals about the whole matter.

Note first of all that Daniel's image is seen standing in Babylon (2:31). This image has to do with a Babylonian kingdom from beginning to end. The head of gold has to do with the kingdom of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar and any immediate successors prior to the conquest of the kingdom by the nation or nations represented by the breast and arms of silver (2:37, 38). The breast and arms of silver have to do with the Medes and the Persians coming in and conquering the preceding kingdom (2:39; 5:28, 31). And the belly and thighs of brass have to do with the Grecians coming in and conquering the kingdom ruled by the Medes and the Persians (2:39; 8:6, 7, 20, 21). The mechanics of the preceding, of course, is the interpretation held in common by almost anyone reading Daniel. This is simply what the record in Daniel states, along with secular history.

But note something often overlooked about the preceding: This kingdom is Babylonian throughout. The powers represented by the head of gold, the breast and arms of silver, and the belly and thighs of brass all reigned from Babylon. For example, when the Medes and the Persians came in and took the kingdom in 538 B.C., they reigned from Babylon and were still there when Alexander the Great came over in 330 B.C., 208 years later. Then, when Alexander the Great took the kingdom, he also reigned from Babylon. In other words, the image is not seen lying down, with the head of gold in Babylon, the breast and arms of silver in Media and Persia, and the belly and thighs of brass in Greece. That's not the picture at all. The image is seen standing in Babylon. It is Babylonian in its entirety.

This is one place where those who view a Roman Empire next in the prophecy go astray. Rome had nothing to do with a reign from Babylon in history. The capital of the Roman Empire was Rome, not Babylon. And Rome is not Babylon. If there were such a thing as a revived Roman Empire though, there could possibly be room for the final form of the Roman Empire to be connected with Babylon, for Babylon, back on the Euphrates, will be the capital of the earth during the last half of the Tribulation. Such though will not be the case.

Those viewing Rome as representing the fourth part of the image try to press secular history into Biblical prophecy at a point where it seems to possibly fit, but really doesn't. Then they further complicate the matter by a misinterpretation of Dan. 9:26.

The most interesting thing about the whole matter is the fact that Daniel identifies all four parts of the image, and he identifies the fourth part as being other than the Roman Empire. Daniel, in his identity, has Antichrist coming into power immediately following a four-way division of the kingdom after the death of Alexander the Great. The kingdom under Antichrist follows the Greco-Babylonian kingdom and is represented by the legs of iron, and in its final form by the feet part of iron and part of clay.

The first part of the image is identified in Dan. 2:37, 38. Then following this the remaining three parts of the image are given, though not identified. Then note the prominence given to the fourth part -- two verses cover the first part (vv. 37, 38), one verse the next two parts (v. 39), but six verses are devoted to the final form (vv. 40-45). And such prominence relative to the fourth part is true elsewhere in Daniel also (see chs. 7, 8, 11). Why would such prominence be given to Rome and not to nations associated with the first three parts of the image? It's not! Rather, it's the kingdom of Babylon under its last king (Antichrist) which occupies the forefront in the Book of Daniel.

The identities of the other three parts are given in the vision of the "four great beasts" and the interpretation of this vision in chapters seven and eight. The four beasts are said to represent four kingdoms (four sequential kingdoms forming the one Babylonian kingdom [7:17; cf. v. 23]), and beginning with the second beast, the last three are identified in chapter eight. For the identity of the second, compare vv. 3, 4 with v. 20 (cf. Dan. 5:28, 31); for the identity of the third, compare vv. 5-8 with vv. 21, 22; and for the identity of the fourth, compare vv. 9-14 with vv. 23-26. Note that the identity of the second is Media and Persia (corresponding to the breast and arms of silver on the image), the identity of the third is Greece (corresponding to the belly and thighs of brass), and the identity of the fourth is the kingdom under Antichrist (corresponding to the legs of iron and the feet part of iron and part of clay). Where is Rome? Rome is not in the prophecy!

Following Alexander the Great's death, the kingdom was divided among his four generals (vv. 8, 22), and the vision then goes immediately into the days of Antichrist yet future (the "little horn" in v. 9 is not Antiochus Epiphanes, but Antichrist [see parallel verses, vv. 23-26]). So, what happened? The kingdom under Alexander the Great's four generals gradually faded from view (though the prophecy in Daniel does not cover events during the reign of these four generals following this division. Daniel's prophecy goes immediately into the power represented by the fourth part of the image [or the power represented by the fourth beast], into the days of Antichrist); and a couple of hundred years following Alexander the Great's death Rome came into the picture as a world power, but not as a world power fulfilling any part of Daniel's prophecy. This prophecy will not again continue to be fulfilled until Antichrist appears during Daniel's Seventieth Week. Then, and only then, will the fourth part of the image from Dan. 2 and the fourth beast in Dan. 7, 8 come into existence.

Now, what about "the people of the prince that shall come" in Dan. 9:26? Does that not refer to a destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and to the Romans being Antichrist's people in history? Not at all.

First note the expression, "the people of the prince that shall come," and compare this with a similar expression in Dan. 7:27 -- "the people of the saints of the most High." Who will take the kingdom in Dan. 7:18-27? Note in v. 18 that it is "the saints of the most High," and in v. 27 it is "the people of the saints of the most High." The latter is the translation of a Hebrew idiom which is equivalent to the former. And it is the same in Dan. 9:26. "The people of the prince" in Dan. 9:26 is a reference to the prince himself. Failure to recognize this idiom and properly interpret its usage in Dan. 9:26 has resulted in confusion.

The destruction of Jerusalem in Dan. 9:26 is not a reference to the destruction which occurred in 70 A.D. but rather a reference to a future destruction under Antichrist in the middle of the Tribulation. This is the same destruction referred to in Luke 21:20-24 (cf. Rev. 11:2). The destruction in Dan. 9:26 must occur within the framework of the Seventy Weeks (ref. Chapter III), and contextually it occurs in connection with Antichrist breaking his covenant with Israel in v. 27. Both the text and context in Luke 21:20-24 show that this section also has to do with the same time as Dan. 9:26 -- the coming Tribulation, rather than with events in 70 A.D.

Part II

The Mother of Harlots

The identification of "Mystery, Babylon, the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth" in Rev. 17:5 as the Church of Rome, aside from being based on a misunderstanding of v. 9, would probably not be widely held by commentators at all if Daniel's prophecy concerning the fourth part of the image (or the fourth great beast) were understood correctly. Roman Catholicism is the predominate religious faith in Europe, and erroneously viewing a European Antichrist who reigns through ten European nations (necessitated by understanding the fourth part of Daniel's image to be Rome, with a revived Roman Empire fulfilling the prophecy during the days of Antichrist), one would quite naturally associate the harlot with this particular religious faith.

Antichrist though will not reign from Europe through European nations. He will reign from the Middle East through Middle East nations, and, by far, the predominate religious faith in that part of the world is Islam. And this is exactly as it should be, for God will have concluded His dealings with the Church and will once again be dealing with Israel; and Islam is to Judaism what Roman Catholicism is to Christianity.

Beyond the present dispensation, it would be completely out of place for God to deal with a pseudo segment of the Church left behind at the time of the rapture on the one hand and with Israel on the other hand. There's also no possible way that this pseudo segment of the Church (or a combination of all the various false religions, as some teach) could be called a "harlot" within the scope of God's dealings with Israel. But Islam could, and it is really the only false religious faith on earth which could occupy a status of this nature.

To word the matter as previously stated, Islam is the false counterpart to Judaism (associating Judaism with the true teachings of the Old Testament Scriptures as opposed to Islam's false view) in the same sense that Roman Catholicism (along with a large segment of today's Protestantism) is a false counterpart to true Christianity. Those holding to both the Islamic and Jewish faiths trace the beginning of that which they believe back to the same point -- Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant (ref. Chapter I). They both look back to the same father and to the covenant which God made with their father and his seed. Islam begins its false teaching at this point, claiming that the covenant promises are to be realized through Ishmael (Abraham's firstborn) rather than through Isaac (born fourteen years later); and Islam looks back to Mohammed, a descendant of Ishmael, as the last and greatest of the prophets -- a false prophet with a false way of salvation. Thus, their religion becomes a corruption of the true faith given through Jewish prophets, which views the covenant promises one day being realized through Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's twelve sons, and which looks to the coming of a Jewish Saviour (Gen. 17:18-21; Heb. 11:8-19).

There's no other religious faith on earth even closely resembling Islam in this respect; and this is the religious faith of the nations presently surrounding Israel in the Middle East, which will be associated with Antichrist during the Tribulation. And it is because of the false form which this religion takes in relation to Israel and the Old Testament Scriptures that it is called a "harlot"; and it is because of this religion's inseparable identification with Babylon that it is called "The Mother of Harlots." "Babylon" is the Mother (in relation to that which is false. The origin of all false religions, after some fashion, can be traced back to Babylon); and the harlot, inseparably identified with the city of Babylon, becomes "The Mother of Harlots."

No other false religion in the world could even come close to qualifying as the recipient of this title during the Tribulation, even if that religious faith possessed an inseparable identification with Babylon. Islam alone will occupy this dubious honor.

(Accordingly, the pseudo-Church left behind at the time of the rapture [whether Catholic or Protestant] will occupy no special place in God's dealings with the earth-dwellers during the Tribulation, no more so than will the followers of Buddha or the followers of Confucius, among numerous others. God's activities will no longer center around the Church [for the dispensation during which God deals with the Church on earth will have been brought to a close, and the Church will have been raptured]. Rather, God's activities during the Tribulation will center solely around Israel and those nations coming in contact with Israel -- Russia, Germany, the Middle East Moslem nations, the nations from "the east," and finally the nations of "the earth" [Ezek. 38:2-6; Dan. 11:21ff; Rev. 16:12; 19:19].)

When the final form of the Babylonian kingdom, centered in Babylon, comes into existence, Islam will also appear in its final form, as "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth." And both will be destroyed shortly thereafter, never to rise again -- Islam first, and then the city of Babylon itself.

Part III

The Beast and False Prophet

Revelation, chapter thirteen presents the two principle evil individuals who will appear on earth during the Tribulation, using the expression "beast" to describe both. The first will be a political leader who arises from a Gentile country (vv. 1, 2), and the second will be a religious leader who arises from within the nation of Israel (vv. 11-15). Both will appear to Israel after a peaceful fashion, but both will later turn against Israel and, together, seek to bring about the destruction of this nation (Dan. 9:26, 27; Rev. 13:11).

The question is often asked, "Which of these two will be the Antichrist?" Students of the Word differ at this point. Some identify the first beast as the Antichrist, while others find reason to identify the second beast after this fashion.

The word "Antichrist" is found in only two books in the New Testament -- I John and II John. The word appears four times in I John (2:18, 22; 4:3) and one time in II John (v. 7). Thus, the word does not appear in the Book of Revelation in connection with either beast.

But to say that John does not call either beast in Rev. 13, "Antichrist," is not really a fair statement. Though he does not use the word in Rev. 13, he refers to that coming evil person after such a fashion in I John 2:18. John states, "...ye have heard that antichrist shall come..." And one of the individuals set forth in Rev. 13 would have to be identified as the person John had previously spoken of in his first epistle.

Note that "Antichrist" is a compound word ("anti," prefixed to "Christ," is a Greek preposition, transliterated from Greek to English and often found prefixed to different words [in both Greek and English alike]). It can be shown that those living during the time in which the New Testament was written, during the first century, understood the word anti to mean "instead of," or "in the place of"; and this is the manner in which the word is invariably used in the Greek New Testament when it stands alone in a sentence (cf. Matt. 5:38; 20:38; Rom. 12:17; I Thess. 5:15). When the word is prefixed to another word though, the thought expressed by anti, usually takes on a meaning more in the sense of "opposite" or "against" (cf. John 19:12; Acts 7:52; 18:16; II Thess. 2:15 [I Tim. 2:6 provides an exception]).

In II Thess. 2:4, the word anti is prefixed to the word "keimai ['to lie,' or 'to recline']." The compound word antikeimai means "to lie opposite to," taking on the meaning of "opposition to." And in this passage antikeimai is used relative to the actions of the first beast in Rev. 13: "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God..."

Anti prefixed to "Christ," forming the word "Antichrist," would seem, from its contextual usage in I, II John, to also carry this same meaning. Antichrist would be the one "opposed to Christ," the one "against Christ." And this could describe either beast.

Using the other meaning of the word anti, either beast could also be in view. Both beasts actually appear "in the stead of Christ." The first beast appears after this fashion in a political sense, ruling the earth instead of Christ (from Babylon instead of Jerusalem); and the second beast appears in a religious sense instead of Christ -- as a "false prophet" instead of the true prophet.

Thus, in one respect, either way the word "Antichrist" is to be understood, both beasts could claim this title by their actions. But John only had one in mind when he wrote his first epistle.

The first beast is seen as the central figure among the two throughout Scripture. He is, for example, typified by the Assyrian Pharaoh in Egypt during Moses' day; and he is the one who will be the last king of Babylon. He is the one who will both make and break the covenant with "the many," though the second beast may also play a specific part in both; and he is the one who will sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, declaring himself to be God. He is also the one who will be the great persecutor of the Jewish people in the latter days, and even in Rev. 13 the prominence is given to this individual rather than to the second beast.

The manner in which the first beast is presented throughout Scripture provides the reason why most students of the Word identify him as the one of whom John spoke in his first epistle; and this is the manner in which the expression "Antichrist" has been used in this book.

Part IV

The European Common Market

Under Antichrist there will be a one-world system, something which the world is rapidly moving toward today. Europe, for example, has been moving toward a "Common Market" system for years; and a number of the world's leaders today are, for the first time, openly talking about and using the expression, "The New World Order."

Thus, though Antichrist will rule from the Middle East through ten Middle East Moslem nations, the European Common Market nations (which many Bible students erroneously see Antichrist ruling through) are not without prophetic significance. The nations in Europe are rapidly merging toward a unity which they have never had in the past, a unity which would allow the entire continent to merge quite naturally into Antichrist's one-world system.

Europe, because of its heavy dependence on Middle East oil, could easily find itself in the position of being quite vulnerable surrounding the dictates of a Middle East ruler controlling this oil. Europe is far more dependent than the United States on oil from the Persian Gulf, and the United States itself is far from being in a position to escape such vulnerability, along with much of the remainder of the world.

Thus, if one man could control this flow, he could easily bring the European Common Market nations to their knees. And controlling a unified Middle East and Europe after this fashion, the remainder of the world could only lie at his doorstep. In this respect, the European Common Market nations may very well be the key which unlocks the door to Antichrist's centralized worldwide government. That remains to be seen.

One thing though is certain. "The New World Order," with Europe as a main participant, is going to come to pass. It is no idle dream of man. It's going to shortly be brought about through the actions of one man -- "Antichrist" -- whom the world presently awaits. And the stage is rapidly being set today for this man to make his appearance.

(Actually, "The New World Order," synonymous with a one-world system, is not new at all. Such a system had it's organized beginning in Babylon over four millenniums ago, during the days of Nimrod [Gen. 10:8-10; 11:1-9]; and this same system will have its organized end in Babylon in the immediate future, during the days of Antichrist [Rev. 13:8, 16, 17].

Thus, from the time of its inception to the time of its destruction, a system of this nature is, in reality, Babylonian, not European. But Europe, along with the remainder of the world, will be an integral part of this system in the end time.)

Part V

Islamic Teaching / The Temple Mount

The existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East forms a contradiction in Islamic teaching. Islam teaches that 1) "Allah" has predetermined all things, and 2) "Allah" is through with the Jews.

Judaism (along with the Christian faith) is looked upon by Moslems as an older religion whose people strayed from the true path of "Allah." Resultingly, God is through with the Jews (and Christians as well); and since "Allah" has predetermined all things, for the land of Palestine and the holy sites to once again come under Jewish control is looked upon by Moslems as theologically impossible.

This belief then naturally gives rise to an unanswerable question: "How can a Jewish nation presently exist in the Middle East, especially in the land of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital?"

This is the land God covenanted to Abraham and his posterity, which Moslems believe was to be inherited by Abraham's descendants through Ishmael; and this is also the land which, for centuries, until modern times, had been under Islamic dominion and control -- possessed by Moslems for "Allah," but now possessed by the Jewish people.

Moslems attempt to answer the question about present Israeli dominion and control of this land, solving the problem for the moment, through simply refusing to recognize the existence of the nation of Israel. This is why the Moslem nations have such a difficult time when it comes to any type dealings with Israel. Such dealings, in their eyes, are with a people who have no right to exist and who form a nation which, according to Islamic teaching, actually, can't (and, consequently, doesn't) exist. This is one problem which Antichrist will have to solve in order to bring about his covenant of peace.

The actions of Arab delegates at the United Nations assembly provide a case in point to illustrate Moslem thinking about the existence of the nation of Israel. When an Israeli delegate gets up to speak, the Arab delegates (Moslem delegates) either ignore him or get up and leave. They do neither within a framework of what might be called bad manners. Their actions are governed strictly by reasoning within the Moslem way of thinking: "The Israeli delegate is a nobody, representing nothing, so why listen to a nobody saying something about nothing?"

Any negotiations with Israel by Moslems are not normally done directly (as in the case of Anwar Sadat's dealings with Menachem Begin and others in Israel during the late '70's). Rather, such dealings are normally carried out through a third party. And this is possibly the way Antichrist will enact peace between the Moslems and the Jews.

At the heart of the problem today is the Jewish occupation and control of the old city of Jerusalem, the third most holy place in the world for the followers of Islam. The Arabs occupied and controlled this part of Jerusalem from the time of the inception of the Jewish state in 1948 until the Six-Day War of 1967, but the Israelis have occupied and controlled all of Jerusalem (the new and old sections) since that time. And in 1980, the Israeli Kenesset passed a law declaring Jerusalem to be "eternal and indivisible."

It is the Temple Mount in the old city of Jerusalem which makes this city the third most holy place in the world for the followers of Islam. This is the place Moslems believe Abraham offered Ishmael as a burnt offering (a corruption of Gen. 22), and this is the place where Moslems believe Mohammed bodily ascended to heaven and remained for a short time (he is buried in Medina).

The Temple Mount though is not sacred to just the Moslems. It is sacred as well to the Jewish people. And to them the Temple Mount is the most holy place in the world. In the eyes of the Jewish people, there is nothing which can even remotely compare with the Temple Mount. Moslems face toward Mecca when they pray, but religious Jews face toward the Temple Mount. These Jews, facing toward this mount, pray for the coming of their Messiah and the rebuilding of their temple.

On the Temple Mount today there are two Moslem mosques: the Dome of the Rock (the Mosque of Omar, built in the seventh century over the site where Moslems believe Abraham offered Ishmael and Mohammed ascended to heaven), and the Al Aksa Mosque (built at a later date). And it is on this mount that a Jewish temple will stand in the immediate future.

The temple must be built on the exact spot where the previous two temples stood; and from the best calculations of those who have studied the matter over the years (such as Rabbi Goren, Chief Rabbi for the Israeli armed forces when the Jews captured the old city of Jerusalem in 1967), conclusions are that the Jewish temple, in order to stand on this exact spot, must be built exactly where the Dome of the Rock now stands.

How can this be brought to pass? No one seems to know. Rabbi Goren answers the question by simply saying, "It's a big problem." But it is going to occur, and it will occur shortly after Antichrist establishes his covenant with "the many" in Israel.

For decades the Jews have been openly praying at the Wailing Wall for their temple to be rebuilt. And the Moslems, knowing that the only place this temple can be rebuilt is where the Dome of the Rock now stands, have, over the years, expressed grave concern about the Jews praying after this fashion at this particular location. Sometimes the matter breaks out into open, hostile actions, such as the much-publicized outbreak of violence which occurred October 8, 1990 when several thousand Moslems moved toward the Temple Mount to attack Jews praying at the Wailing Wall.

Thus, at the center of the Arab-Israeli dispute over the old city of Jerusalem is the Temple Mount. Possession and control of this one piece of real estate is at the center of the intractable problem which exists concerning the old city of Jerusalem as a whole. This is where the impasse is centered, which makes the Arab-Israeli dispute basically a religious problem. And until this problem is resolved, very little in the overall dispute can change.

In one sense of the word though, it matters little what Moslems, Jews, or the nations at large do about the matter today, for, according to the Scriptures, during the first year of the Tribulation the Jews are going to build a temple on this mount (Dan. 8:11-14). The covenant (peace treaty) which Antichrist will establish between Israel and the Moslem nations will either have something directly to do with allowing Israel to rebuild her temple or it will provide conditions which will allow Israel to undertake this task apart from the actual terms of the covenant itself.

In either case, the covenant will be broken by Antichrist entering the temple on the Temple Mount, desecrating the temple, sitting in the Holy of Holies declaring himself to be "God," and then destroying the temple (Dan. 9:26; Matt. 24:15; II Thess. 2:3, 4). The Moslem clerics will be exercising control over his military endeavors at this time; and, because of the importance of the Temple Mount to the Moslems and Jews alike, it will only be natural for a desecration and destruction of the Jewish temple to occupy a strategic part in Antichrist's initial act of breaking his covenant.

Also, it is possible that the Jews gaining access to the Temple Mount to rebuild their temple will be the trigger-mechanism which brings Russia down into Israel during the first year of the Tribulation, seeking to help Moslem nations to the north and south of Israel do what the Moslems have been trying to do since May 14, 1948 -- drive the Jews into the Mediterranean sea and reclaim the land of Palestine for "Allah."

After all, the temple must stand where the Dome of the Rock now stands, something unthinkable within the framework of the current status of events in the Middle East. And any move by Israel toward the Temple Mount today, with a view to building a Jewish temple on the spot where the Dome of the Rock stands, would bring the wrath of the Moslem world down upon Israel.

A few years ago, the head of the Supreme Moslem Council in Jerusalem stated concerning the matter, "The Moslems are prepared to die for this place [a statement actually referring to the Temple Mount as a whole]." And certain Moslem nations during the Tribulation (which will possibly not be among the nations having a part in the peace treaty with Israel) may very well look upon the matter after a similar fashion when Israel sets about to rebuild her temple, with Russia taking advantage of the situation at that time through direct military intervention.

Daniel reveals that Israel will rebuild the temple during the same year that Ezekiel reveals Russia will come down to help four Moslem nations destroy Israel -- during the first year of the Tribulation. The timing of both events is seemingly right for the events to be interrelated; but they may or may not be. Scripture is silent on this possible connection.

Part VI

Jihad

No attempt has been made in FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE EAST to distinguish between the different branches of Islam (there are actually over one hundred fifty different sects altogether). Sunni and Shi'ite divisions form the two main branches, with the Sunni branch being, by far, the larger of the two. The Sunnis are generally more moderate than the Shi'ites in their approach to matters, though both can be quite militant; and the Sunni and Shi'ite branches have differences of a nature which often result in open conflict between the two. However, despite these differences, or differences between any of the Islamic sects, basic Islamic ideology permeates all branches. All are anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-Western, and, as a whole, dedicated to world dominion, beginning with the land of Palestine in the Middle East.

The means to bring this about, -- Jihad (Holy War) -- is, correspondingly, also present in all branches of Islam, though some Moslems view the matter in a more moderate sense than others (some even go so far as to view Jihad as no more than an internal religious struggle for the individual Moslem, a thought not really in line with basic Islamic ideology regarding Jihad).

The Koran and the example set by Mohammed present Jihad after the same fashion. The Koran urges all Moslems to war against unbelievers "until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme." And Mohammed is looked upon as the one setting the example by his many battles and victories recorded in the Hadith (Islamic oral tradition of Mohammed's actions and sayings).

Islam, with its Jihad, has long been known as "the religion of the sword"; but Jihad today is waged more by the power of "oil" than anything else, for the Moslem nations have in their possession something far more powerful than any sword wielded against unbelievers by their ancestors. And, through the use of this weapon (which they believe "Allah" has given to them for the purpose at hand), their long-range goal is an on-going "holy war" which will last until the entire world is brought under Islamic dominion and control.

With reference to Jihad, one other thing should be noted in closing. Some individual Moslems shun violent actions today, even toward the Jewish people; but they do this in spite of what their religious faith teaches, not because of it.

Arlen L. Chitwood, The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., Norman, Okla.
E-mail: alchitwood@icnet.net.